turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Socialist Party of the United States (Southern Victory)
In 1918 they came seventeen votes short of controlling the House outright, so they formed the second multi-party governing coalition in that body's history. Foolish of the Democrats not to try to woo the Republicans themselves. Whether they had an absolute majority in the Senate I don't know, and I'm guessing they hit the magical 51% mark in future elections. The bit about "The Party's greatest mistake was not setting up a New Deal" is quite inappropriate to the article: We're supposed to be objective, we don't know enough about the economic crisis to say whether it needed a command/control economy or a free market one to provide the correction, and if you start using anachronistic terms like New Deal in an article about a timeline that doesn't have one, you're on a par with "Jake Featherston is the Hitler of TL-191." Turtle Fan 05:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Ah, an anonymous poster strikes again. TR 18:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Yay for amateurish edits! -- Jelay14. No, boo. I'm starting to think we should protect this entire Wiki and just do things as we ourselves see fit. I don't think that's wholly necessary. Some anonymous edits are quite useful. I'd rather leave it open, and filter out the chaff. On a vaguely related note, I have thought about asking our host if we could diversify a bit, maybe throw some non-HT AH here. TR 23:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Splitting the Article Should we split this into US and CS Socialist Party articles? TR 21:22, February 15, 2010 (UTC) :Yes, let's. They took very different paths. The USSP started as wannabe revolutionaries, then became a part of the system, then became a center-left party. The CSSP started as real revolutionaries, but even then they weren't cooperating with the USSP. Then they became wannabe parts of the system, then they went extinct. If they were closely aligned across national lines--like the Communist parties among all the Iron Curtain nations except Yugoslavia and Albania, or, more appropriate to TL-191, the Freedom Party in the CS and its nasty US satellites, that would be different. Turtle Fan 22:23, February 15, 2010 (UTC) Reversions Respectfully, I just don't know that such precise ideological vocabulary applies here. We're talking about a party that we saw evolve over the course of more than sixty years, in analternate timeline. Yes, they wasted no time going all New Labour once they were elected, but in a very different context from 21st century Europe. As for notable members, there's really no room for it in the template. There are dozens who might be named. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:54, May 18, 2016 (UTC) Socialist administration of the CS From the article :"Moreover, Socialist administrations, like Democrat ones, left the running of captured Confederate territories in the hands of ex-Confederate officials like Luther Bliss in Kentucky - willing to collaborate with US rule, but just as racist as most other Confederates - with the result that Blacks in these states remained disenfranchised, second-class citizens." I don't know that we can say this. Bliss had a hard-on for Cincinnatus Driver because he correctly believed Driver had Red ties and had gotten away with something during the GW. Unless I'm forgetting something, we shouldn't assume Bliss was the baseline. TR (talk) 23:32, August 14, 2016 (UTC) :To the best of my recollection, Bliss is the only one we know anything about at all. And as you say, his grudge against Driver was personal, not racial. Turtle Fan (talk) 00:52, August 15, 2016 (UTC) ::I do have a vague recollection that when Driver and his family moved to Des Moines, he felt satisfaction that he could now vote during the next election. If so, then it implies blacks were still disenfranchised in Kentucky. ML4E (talk) 16:12, August 15, 2016 (UTC) :::Or it could mean that he knew he'd be able to vote after a lifetime of not voting. Upon some further review, blacks did vote in the Richmond Agreement Plebiscite. Whether that had been going on since some point after 1917 or had just started for the plebiscite, I can't say for certain, although no one comments on how this was the first time Negroes were allowed to vote in Kentucky, etc. TR (talk) 18:07, August 15, 2016 (UTC) ::::Black suffrage was a state-by-state issue as of the AE trilogy, I definitely remember that. Kentucky was conservative and racist and so opted not to extend the franchise to black constituents. (The plebiscite was indeed the exception, that was the one concession Smith was able to draw out of Featherston, and it was enough to save Sequoyah.) Since the federal government tolerated racist disenfranchisement even in states that had never been part of the CSA, I don't see how we can call this a sop to collaborators. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:46, August 15, 2016 (UTC) Literary comment Is this really necessary? I personally think it is self-evident and so not needed, but others may disagree. ML4E (talk) 20:44, December 30, 2016 (UTC) :The similar membership lists of the OTL and ATL versions make it a bit confusing. The OTL version was a constant presence in OTL elections, so someone might be confused as to why we're calling this a fictional party.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 21:13, December 30, 2016 (UTC) ::From the first paragraph: "The Socialist Party was a left-wing party that became a major political force in the United States after the Second Mexican War. Abraham Lincoln and a group of left-wing Republicans formed the Socialist Party in 1882 from a variety of leftist organizations." ::If someone reads the first paragraph, and is still confused as to why this party is fictional, then the lit comm will not make them smarter. I vote delete. TR (talk) 01:27, December 31, 2016 (UTC) :::I also think the "(Southern Victory)" in the article name would be a big indication its not OTL Socialist Party. ML4E (talk) 16:18, December 31, 2016 (UTC) ::::That, too. TR (talk) 18:22, December 31, 2016 (UTC)